Trump: End birthright citizenship for some US-born babies

[lierre 224]

7 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I have always been able to add up.

 

More science:

 

 

Here's a good read about polling surveys and misrepresentation of statistics...

 

Link: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/03/when-writing-about-survey-data-51-might-not-mean-a-majority/

 

"One of these criteria is the survey’s margin of error. Since surveys only question a sample of a larger population that is being studied – whether that population is a single city, an entire country or something else – the margin of error describes the estimated range within which we would expect the exact answer to fall. (The results we would have gotten if we had surveyed everyone in that larger population is the “true population value.”) For example, if a survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level, that means we can expect the result to be within 3 percentage points of the true population value 95 out of 100 times.

Let’s say our hypothetical survey asks a yes or no question about whether the economy should be the top concern of the country’s political leaders. If 51% of all respondents say “yes,” we would estimate the true population value to fall between 48% and 54%. As such, 51% in this survey would not necessarily translate to a “majority” of Americans. But if 54% say “yes” – again keeping in mind the 3-point margin of error – then we would estimate the true population value to fall between 51% and 57%. Therefore, it would be a fair characterization by our standards to say that a response of 54% or higher is a “majority” share of the population. (The Center’s writing guidelines note, however, that caution is always warranted when you’re close to the threshold.)"

 

 

So you're correct in thinking that polls that are hardly representative of the general US population are not reliable.

 

The census however.

Edited October 31, 2018 by lierre

[Boiler 45,519]

The census is a somewhat better general poll, nobody I know has ever said it was accurate, just the best that could be reasonably done,  a few caveats on that but getting waaay off topic.

[lierre 224]

24 minutes ago, Boiler said:

The census is a somewhat better general poll, nobody I know has ever said it was accurate, just the best that could be reasonably done,  a few caveats on that but getting waaay off topic.

 

Again, the census is NOT the same as an opinion poll. A further explanation of the US Census's sampling frame and methods can be found here: https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/Wright.pdf if you need further information.

 

You went off-topic when you brought up opinion polls. Which is hardly relevant to this discussion.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Depends on the type of news you read... Clealy the government regularly uses different terms than that of the anti-immigrant groups. 

I am not referring to any news source, but the link YOU provided.  I am sure even you can see the disparity.  Then again, you are in favor of illegal immigration, so perhaps you are only sensitive to the illegal folks who come here?  I don’t know, only you can answer that one.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, lierre said:

ONLY 3.5% of the 2014 US population — this Pew Research Center estimate even included immigrants with temporary protected status, asylum seekers, and those who are protected under DACA... so the actual percentage for the Mexican mother and her “anchor baby” scenario is even smaller.

 

Source for the above statistic & methodology of how the estimates were made: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/

 

Crazy, isn’t it? I was under the impression the number would be higher, too, with all the rhetoric against these people... you would think they’re stealing people’s jobs from under their nose. And you would think they would have babies left & right as soon as they get to the US.

How accurate do you really think that number is?  About as accurate as the illegals who put themselves on the radar.  Do you suppose there are a number who successfully cross our southern border, and are not included in this 3.5% statistic at all?  Can’t remember where, but a few months back I saw an estimate that the actual number was in excess of 20 million illegals currently in the US.  That’s more like 6%.  

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Anti immagrant can mean alot of things, inclding being in support of legislation against immagrants in general. 

And..

Trump is going pretty deep with those anti immgrant initiatives. 

 

 

We are Anti-Illegal Immigrant. That facts keeps getting lost. Most of us are married to legal immigrants 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Marty Byrde said:

We are Anti-Illegal Immigrant. That facts keeps getting lost. Most of us are married to legal immigrants 

I’m white, and therefore a racist and a xenophobe.  (I am also the most dangerous terrorist, apparently?)

 

Yet I am married to a foreigner of color.  I am SO conflicted as to how to act daily.

[Shiran 1,134]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

I have always been able to add up.

 

More science:

 

Not sure what an immagrant is but not anti immigrant as he has repeatedly said so.

Bring up discussion about future predictive polling methodologies into a topic about current population statistic doesn't really seem relevant. In reality, the point is rather moot regardless. It is rather unlikely that there will be any constitutional change with regards to this, as this merely appears like a flashy talk point to redirect pre-midterm conversation to topic of immigration. Still, even ignoring that fact, as with all things, this doesn't appear to address an actual serious problem that factually exist (e.g. South and Central Americans coming to US illegally specifically and solely with a purpose of having "anchor babies")

[Boiler 45,519]

4 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

I’m white, and therefore a racist and a xenophobe.  (I am also the most dangerous terrorist, apparently?)

 

Yet I am married to a foreigner of color.  I am SO conflicted as to how to act daily.

Actually a few more things for you to concern yourself about.

[Boiler 45,519]

2 minutes ago, Shiran said:

Bring up discussion about future predictive polling methodologies into a topic about current population statistic doesn't really seem relevant. In reality, the point is rather moot regardless. It is rather unlikely that there will be any constitutional change with regards to this, as this merely appears like a flashy talk point to redirect pre-midterm conversation to topic of immigration. Still, even ignoring that fact, as with all things, this doesn't appear to address an actual serious problem that factually exist (e.g. South and Central Americans coming to US illegally specifically and solely with a purpose of having "anchor babies")

 

Most of it seems currently to be coming from elsewhere, China, Russia etc, for some reason a lot of questions come up from Africa.

 

Of course there have been back door attempts through fake Birth Certificates, they seem to be more Border related.

 

Some pay, some go on Emergency Medicaid, lots of threads on here where Parents want a Tourist Visa and have been refused as they got the birth paid using Emergency Medicaid. 

[Shiran 1,134]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

 

Most of it seems currently to be coming from elsewhere, China, Russia etc, for some reason a lot of questions come up from Africa.

 

Of course there have been back door attempts through fake Birth Certificates, they seem to be more Border related.

 

Some pay, some go on Emergency Medicaid, lots of threads on here where Parents want a Tourist Visa and have been refused as they got the birth paid using Emergency Medicaid. 

Correct, there are indeed services for wealthy people (many of them from China) to have.. sorta like reverse anchor babies and birth tourism. Neither child nor mother actually stay in US after the childbirth typically. While I don't see it as a good thing, I fail to see as terribly bad thing. Those people DO pay into US economy during their stay  here.. Either, for example, every person who can prove themselves Jewish,  via conversion or blood relationship is allowed to have Aliyah, return to Israel to live there. That person might have never stepped on Israel soil, or been inside a Synagogue but they have this path to Israeli citizenship.  Most Central, South, and North American countries have automatic birth citizenship as well.  

[lierre 224]

21 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

How accurate do you really think that number is?  About as accurate as the illegals who put themselves on the radar.  Do you suppose there are a number who successfully cross our southern border, and are not included in this 3.5% statistic at all?  Can’t remember where, but a few months back I saw an estimate that the actual number was in excess of 20 million illegals currently in the US.  That’s more like 6%.  

 

 

It would be interesting to know how that 6% estimate was derived.

 

My previous response applies to the above boldfaced quoted text. Here it is:

 

 

3 hours ago, lierre said:

It’s a best estimate. 

 

“The unauthorized immigrant estimates in this report are produced using a multistage method that first subtracts the estimated U.S. lawful foreign-born population from the total adjusted foreign-born population to derive a residual estimate of the unauthorized immigrant population. Then, the residual estimates serve as control totals in assigning legal status to individual respondents in the survey. The main source of data for 1995-2004 is the March supplement of the Current Population Survey, and for 2005-2014 it is the American Community Survey; both are conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau; see Methodology for more details.”

 

A quick read of the methodology would have been available in this link had you clicked it: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/

 

The ACS numbers do not directly state foreign-born population born to immigrants, however it can be derived from the ACS data. It's a gnarly business --censuses and estimates derived from it.

 

And yes, there is always potential for under-reporting as the data collection itself has limitations, i.e. the use of address lists.  The ACS is a large survey however so it is statistically significant or is outside the margins of error. Statistics based on general populations are your best bet.

 

[Boiler 45,519]

1 minute ago, Shiran said:

Correct, there are indeed services for wealthy people (many of them from China) to have.. sorta like reverse anchor babies and birth tourism. Neither child nor mother actually stay in US after the childbirth typically. While I don't see it as a good thing, I fail to see as terribly bad thing. Those people DO pay into US economy during their stay  here.. Either, for example, every person who can prove themselves Jewish,  via conversion or blood relationship is allowed to have Aliyah, return to Israel to live there. That person might have never stepped on Israel soil, or been inside a Synagogue but they have this path to Israeli citizenship.  Most Central, South, and North American countries have automatic birth citizenship as well.  

If they want to come for Medical treatment, and pay for it then fine but should not come with a US Passport.

 

Not sure what you mean by paying in but anything would be considered a very favourable ROI.

 

Remind me of my Grandfather, they brought in a Pension Scheme a few months before he retired, anyway there was some minimum amount and he got that back in the first year, lived another 30 years so he did very well!

 

I think Ireland was the last European Country to get rid of it, UK had it but times changed so did the Law.

 

I know Canada is looking at changing it, US could be the last 1st world country with it.

 

 

[lierre 224]

Perhaps, because economics isn't my strong suit, but I've found myself fascinated with reading articles with an economic perspective.

 

Just wanted to share...

 

Trump’s Birthright-Citizenship Ban Could Also Pose Risks for the Economy

Excerpt:

"One effect of the loss of legal status: locking second-generation immigrants out of jobs that require background checks, among other issues...

“Productivity is actually higher when people have legal status because you’re more likely to get the appropriate match for your employment,” said Jay Shambaugh... “If you make it harder for people to be in the United States -- especially high-skilled immigrants -- then you’re going to reduce innovation, output, growth going forward.”

And if the change discouraged immigration in the first place or spurred the children of immigrants to leave the country, the policy could weigh on potential gross domestic product. That’s because growth relies on two components: population growth and productivity. Both are already tepid in the U.S."

 

Link to complete article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-30/trump-s-birthright-citizenship-ban-could-pose-risks-for-economy

[Boiler 45,519]

4 minutes ago, lierre said:

Perhaps, because economics isn't my strong suit, but I've found myself fascinated with reading articles with an economic perspective.

 

Just wanted to share...

 

Trump’s Birthright-Citizenship Ban Could Also Pose Risks for the Economy

Excerpt:

"One effect of the loss of legal status: locking second-generation immigrants out of jobs that require background checks, among other issues...

“Productivity is actually higher when people have legal status because you’re more likely to get the appropriate match for your employment,” said Jay Shambaugh... “If you make it harder for people to be in the United States -- especially high-skilled immigrants -- then you’re going to reduce innovation, output, growth going forward.”

And if the change discouraged immigration in the first place or spurred the children of immigrants to leave the country, the policy could weigh on potential gross domestic product. That’s because growth relies on two components: population growth and productivity. Both are already tepid in the U.S."

 

Link to complete article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-30/trump-s-birthright-citizenship-ban-could-pose-risks-for-economy

 

You are not an Immigrant if you do not have legal status, seems to be discussing illegals?